Land-cover change & fragmentation in K2C SPATIAL IMPLICATIONS - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SPATIAL IMPLICATIONS OF CHANGE IN A MULTI-USE LANDSCAPE KAERA COETZER BFN ERASMUS, ETF WITKOWSKI

Land-cover change & fragmentation in K2C

Biosphere Reserves & Conservation Planning

Biosphere reserves (BR) vs. traditional protected areas (PAs) Multi-use landscape

Potential for spatial conflict

Zonation of BRs

Core, Buffer, Transition zones

Conservation planning : ecosystem & regional planning K2C : established 2001

3rd largest internationally, largest in SA

K2C: Study Region

LAND-COVER MAPPING: Available Data 1993 -2006

LAND-COVER CHANGE component : understanding ‘threats’ to biodiversity 8 winter LandSat image pairs 12 broad classification classes, NLC naming conventions

Today's presentation :

Years: 1993, 2006 : Net change Priority Cover Classes: Settlement, Human Impacted Vegetation, Intact Natural Vegetation

Intact : priority biodiversity conservation class of untransformed habitat Settlement & Impacted Vegetation: land-cover in varying states of human

utilization and modification Landscape Metrics

2006 1993

Coetzer et al. 2010. SAJS:106 (7/8)

1993, 2006: Status quo land-cover maps

Zoom-in on Intact Vegetation : NW K2C

Coetzer et al. 2010. SAJS:106 (7/8)

1993 2006

2006 1993

Coetzer et al. 2010. SAJS:106 (7/8)

1993, 2006: Status quo land-cover maps

K2C Land-cover : Zoom-in on Bushbuckridge

Coetzer et al. 2010. SAJS:106 (7/8)

1993 2006

Persistence Map : 1993 - 2006

Coetzer et al. 2010. SAJS:106 (7/8)

∆: 36% of K2C

% Area Changes in classes: 1993, 2006

Priority Classes: Net Contributors to change

Priority Classes:

• 400
• 300
• 200
• 100

100 200 300 400 Exposed Ground Intact Vegetation Settlement Impacted Vegetation Cultivated Lands Grassland: Natural & Managed Area (km2)

Land-cover classes

• Comb. Intact Vegetation:

Woodland, Thicket & Bushland Impacted Vegetation Settlement

Gains, Losses, Persistence : ‘GLP Maps’

Losses Persistence Gains Year X Year X + t Net change = Persistence area + Gain areas – Loss areas

Average Patch Size, Number of patches

Indicates fragmentation, transformation

Shape Index

irregularity of patches. Edge: interior ‘habitat quality issues’

LANDSCAPE METRICS: analysis of the pattern of change

Focal cover Matrix cover Edges: n = 12 Edges: n = 18

Increasing shape index

Aggregation index, Interspersion & Juxtaposition

aggregation of patches, intermixing with surrounding land- cover

Cohesion

structural connectivity across landscape

LANDSCAPE METRICS: analysis of the pattern of change

Matrix cover-types Focal cover Landscape extent

Increasing cohesion Decreasing aggregation, Increasing interspersion

SETTLEMENT (1993 – 2006): Spatial distribution of Gains, Losses, Persistence

Source: Coetzer et al. (Submitted 2011) Photo credit: BFN Erasmus; Xanthia Village, Bushbuckridge

Excluded Classes Losses Persistence Gains

IMPACTED VEGETATION (1993 – 2006): Spatial distribution of Gains, Losses, Persistence

Photo credit: BFN Erasmus; Bushbuckridge Source: Coetzer et al. (Submitted 2011)

Excluded Classes Losses Persistence Gains

Photo credit: BFN Erasmus; Xanthia

INTACT VEGETATION (1993 – 2006): Spatial distribution of Gains, Losses, Persistence

Source: Coetzer et al. (Submitted 2011)

Excluded Classes Losses Persistence Gains

SO WHAT? Big-Picture issues for K2C

Land-cover change not limited to transition zone

Space limiting factor

Worsened by socio-economic circumstances Future development priorities for Poverty nodes Transformation up to PA fences

Long-term consequences for K2C’s ‘Biosphere’ status:

Catch 22: Human needs versus Environmental protection Re-examine zonation : Buffer Zones International BR failures, successes : compare to K2C

RETHINK required?

Acknowledgements

Andrew W. Mellon Foundation National Research Foundation (NRF2069152) The University of the Witwatersrand